The debate over the Second Amendment right to bear arms often seems to include a presumption — at least on the part of some advocates — that it is a right that should be unfettered.

Even a casual reading of the gun-friendly opinions that have come out of the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years shows that is clearly not how justices see it, even the most conservative on the bench.

With these opinions and others in mind, the Colorado legislature would be acting responsibly to impose a modest background check fee on potential gun buyers to defray the costs of the work.

Such a fee could not be a money-maker. It would have to only cover the cost of the work itself.

Given the backlog that exists currently, and the potential that Congress or state lawmakers may approve “universal” checks, which would increase the workload, Colorado lawmakers would be wise to pass a user fee.

The alternatives are longer wait times for a buyer to clear checks, or taking money away from other budget priorities, such as education, to beef up the staff that conducts such checks.

Some opponents of such a fee argue that it’s not legal to charge people who are exercising a constitutional right. Or that a simpler way of reducing costs is to eliminate the state level system, InstaCheck, which they say is duplicative.

First, we’ll address the InstaCheck argument. It’s true that there is overlap between the federal check and the state level check, but InstaCheck includes important databases that the federal check does not.

In 1999, the Colorado legislature allowed InstaCheck to sunset. Shortly thereafter, Simon Gonzales bought a handgun and used it to kill his three daughters and engage in a shootout with Castle Rock police.

Gonzales had a restraining order against him, filed by his wife, that InstaCheck would have caught and prevented him from purchasing a gun. This case is a tragic reminder of the need for checks at both levels.

As to the other argument, that it is illegal to attach a fee to activity protected in the constitution, the courts have, at least thus far, disagreed.

Last year, a federal court upheld New York City’s $340 handgun licensing fee, saying it was designed to cover administrative costs for the three-year permit. While government cannot tax a constitutionally protected activity, it can charge a fee to offset costs associated with regulating such activity, the court ruled.

And let’s keep in mind the actual cost. Conducting a background check in Colorado, as opposed to New York’s extensive permitting process, wouldn’t be as pricey. The Colorado Department of Public Safety has estimated the cost at $10 to $12.

Charging a modest fee would be a prudent move that would allow background checks to be conducted in a timely fashion without siphoning resources from other state priorities.